March 23, 2012

I think he handled this extremely well, stressing that we need to diligently investigate the facts and expressing empathy toward the parents of the dead young man. (I'm avoiding writing "boy," but I see many people including Obama are calling this 17-year-old a "boy," presumably out of empathy, but in my mind, there is discordance with the old problem of overusing the term "boy," and I just can't write it.)

Mr. Obama was asked about his feelings regarding the case during the announcement of a new president for the World Bank in the Rose Garden Friday morning.

The president often appears perturbed when he gets off-topic questions at ceremonial events, but on Friday, he seemed eager to address the case....

So he knew it would be asked or at least anticipated it. (At most: his people planted it.)

... which has quickly developed into an urgent cause in the African American community. He cautioned that his comments would be limited because the Justice Department is investigating. But he talked at length about his personal feelings about the case.

He said: “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids” and “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

He did a much better job here than he did in the Henry Louis Gates incident, where he made assumptions and blurted out "it's fair to say... that the Cambridge police acted stupidly." It wasn't fair to say.

... I am puzzled by one thing: Dem groups are flogging this because they think it’s good for them, but how can it help Obama — who ran as a post-racial figure who would help America put its racial divisions to bed, a sort of anti-Al Sharpton — to have Al Sharpton leading protests and Louis Farrakhan threatening violence?

Sure, it stirs up the base, or part of it anyway — how Florida Latino voters respond may be different — but doesn’t it just add to the unfavorable contrast between Obama 2008 and Obama in 2012? Or are Sharpton, et al., basically tossing Obama’s interests aside to pursue their own? And is that some sort of indicator itself?

These are all good questions, and they explain why Obama needed to step in and try to take control of the discourse around this volatile topic. To my ear, his words have a calming, moderating effect, but we don't all hear him the same way, I've noticed time and again.

199 comments:

He said: “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids” and “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Good post, Ann, but I'm surprised you went right past this statement without identifying it for the pandering it actually is. And stupid to boot. Look like him? In what way other than non-white or non-hispanic? His nose? Skin tone? Height? Ears?

It's a very restrained statement. Very careful. And he was forced into having to talk about this. Relating the matter to his own personal experience, to his own children, is standard political rhetoric, and he handled it well.

The extra reference to his own race, which happened to be possible, was subtle and an example of the kind of racial unification we hoped for when he was elected.

I don't doubt for an instant Axelrod sat him down and told him word for word what to say, lest we have a replay of the Gates thing, with Zero alienating half the "typical white persons" in the country.

From what little I've seen of the story, it sounds like the black people there are behaving responsibly and Fat Albert may not be able to gin this up into another Crown Heights.

"He said: “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids” and “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Maybe Obama has laid some pipe in his past too?

But actually it a wink to the black community, and as Scott M says pandering. This "The extra reference to his own race, which happened to be possible, was subtle and an example of the kind of racial unification we hoped for when he was elected" makes no sense. "which happened to be possible"...what the hell does even mean?

The extra reference to his own race, which happened to be possible, was subtle and an example of the kind of racial unification we hoped for when he was elected.

His own race? He's half-white, remember? A unification would not require pointing it out. In a unified country he would just talk about a father's anguish over the loss of a son, not the fact that kid had roughly the same skin color.

Has anyone even seen a picture of the kid? Is his skin tone, in fact, the same?

I believe most of the answer was fine, but that extra little racial tidbit just spoiled the whole bowl of porridge.

As someone said, con man gotta con. I suspect the SCOAMF has as much empathy for Mr. Martin as he does for anybody whom he doesn't see looking back at him in the mirror every day - that is to say, none.

But WTF is he - or any president doing addressing this? He's supposed to be handling matters of state, not be some national Oprah. And I'd say that even if it were Ronaldus Maximus getting the question.

Yes, distraction is the MSM obsession at the moment. Aren't we still having economic problems and aren't we still headed toward a cliff with a debt that NOBODY can explain how we will survive.

As to the distraction: I find it really disappointing how many Blacks have jumped on this regardless of the evidence. I just see a lynch mob, every bit as evil as the old ones, and with the same motivation.

(I'm avoiding writing "boy," but I see many people including Obama are calling this 17-year-old a "boy," presumably out of empathy, but in my mind, there is discordance with the old problem of overusing the term "boy," and I just can't write it.)

It's all context, If you say "boy", nobody is going to call you a racist.

"To my ear, his words have a calming, moderating effect, but we don't all hear him the same way, I've noticed time and again. "

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Oops, I said "boy". I meant B#y.

I guess he was "trying" to be careful - he didn't hold up a noose.

If the shooter turns out to be justified, as in he was attacked and beaten without threatening the victim first, I don't think this will end well. It might be more "calming" to just railroad him anyway. I think we would all feel better that way.

This is crazy. In Florida, a young man kills a younger man under suspicious circumstances and, in response, a thousand people not wearing hoodies (but referring to themselves as a million hoodies) march on a police station in New York City.

And now the President has to make a statement.

Why?

As Sorun said first, good thing young black males don't get killed very often. Who'd have time for anything else if it were otherwise?

I think he's saying that we only care about people who look like us, and that the white male justice system won't take proper care of the incident, but that he, because he looks like Trayvon, will insist that they do their job in spite of their propensity to not want to do their job. It's a very clear set of implications. He's again saying the police and the justice system are acting stupidly, and in a biased manner. It's the same racial division thing as the Crowley case.

Were Obama's "careful" words selected because the shooter "looks like" the racial voting block he needs to have any chance of winning November's election?

We'll see if Zimmerman's culpability for this homicide dissolves instead into an attack on Florida's "stand your ground" law and law enforcement for failing to bring charges.

What I doubt will ever be considered is whether law enforcement should've brought charges but didn't precisely because law enforcement is hostile to the "stand your ground law" and wanted a backlash and used this kid's death for that purpose.

I would hope Obama would have told his imaginary son that because so many other young black men engage in violent crime that it is not a good idea to walk around at night through a nice neighborhood in a hoodie. It is even more dumb to get aggressive with someone who is out trying to protect the community from the plague that his imaginary son's peers have inflicted on this society.

He was asked. If he declined to answer, you'd be shrieking "SCOAMF!SCOAMF!"

You can't read well, can you, asshat? I wrote quite clearly that no president should be addressing this kind of nonsense, especially when it has all the makings of a lynch mob ready to hang Zimmerman, no matter what.

Had Obama said "I appreciate the question, and my prayers go out to Mr. Martin's family, it's really not a subject I should be speaking on", I'd have - for once - applauded him.

Your last paragraph is precisely the point. Obama *does* sometimes say good and right things. I thought his post-Arizona shootings speech was excellent.

The problems are (1) everything *else* he says contradicts or undermines his good words and (2) everything else he *does* {ditto}.

When you have a man who 90% of the time says and does things that are divisive, dishonest, disingenuous, and even downright stupid - it's hard to take too seriously the genuinely good and right things he sometimes says.

Besides being black, the kid was also tall and skinny, so, yes, any son of Obama and Michelle probably would have had that in common with him.That said, his remarks fed into the media narrative abuilding and propely he should have stayed out of it. But few people behave properly these days.

I don't like it when people bring their own kids into another parents' traumatic experience.

Of course parents always think of their own children, but that isn't why we should have empathy for someone else. Someone without children can imagine the pain of the parents who suffered the loss/injustice just as well. No need to one-up them.

The cynic in me says planted question, and prepared answer--Mr Obama's internal polling may tell him the black voting block may not be monolithic and he has to shore up one of his last remaining constituencies.

-- Conservatives have routinely given Obama credit where it is due (namely in his not-so-different-than-Bush foreign policy developments). Conservatives have shown they are more than willing to give ideological opponents plaudits when they do something they agree with. So, it is rather disingenuous to claim otherwise.

"The reason people feel comfortable calling him "boy" is because the media kept showing a photo of him taken when he *was* still a boy.

Took me a while to realize he was actually 17."

-- 17 is too young to be an adult; I guess, young man is a good compromise, especially since, now that I think about it, boy might not sound quite right. When I think of a boy, I think of someone still single digits or early teens. I think I had been using kid? I don't remember.

"I appreciate the question, and my prayers go out to Mr. Martin's family, it's really not a subject I should be speaking on"

That is exactly how the president should have answered. It is not his place to inject himself into a situation like this. It would have sent a message to everyone involved to back off and let the investigation take its course with a minimum of political interference.

Presidents should not speak on legal matters that are not the direct purvey of their administration. For those of you old enough, remember when Nixon expressed his opinion of Charles Manson's guilt before Manson was tried? The media blew a gasket over that. A president should not be opining on such matters.

There's also the variation "Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Tyrant", but I don't think that one really captures the essence of fecklessness and stink of flop sweat that surrounds and defines the Obama presidency.

traditionalguy said...The empathy for this young teen stalked and killed by a pretend policeman and having his crime instantly covered up and approved by the Seminole County Police officials has to upset anyone.

It's not racial except in the memory of similar experiences of black men in general who are often treated as if they are guilty of something for living in poor neighborhoods.

This kid was found guilty and executed for walking around his own upscale neighborhood wearing the wrong clothes: a hoodie on a rainy cold day and brown skin.

The Police Chief says on reflection that he will take a paid leave and do and say nothing about the murder.

Huh? That is exactly what he has been doing for the last 4 weeks That's what has everybody incensed by his non-actions.

It's Florida, Jake.

3/23/12 11:12 AM

Thank you for giving us the God's eyes view of the matter thus sparing us the drudgery of waiting for the police and prosecutor's doing their jobs. Lets not waste anymore time and lets get the lynch party organized.

Had to laugh at that. Good grief, Althouse! We're talking about the President of the United States here. Nobody forces him to say anything he doesn't want to say. Don't try to tell us that the press worked him into a corner, and he was forced to make the statement he did. That's bullshit of the purest ray serene. C'mon!

I go have to agree with posters who are saying that even if his answer was a sincere attempt at what he suspects is empathy, he fails at both having empathy, and sincerity.

This is a classic example of the, and I use this term with trepidation, "boy" who cried wolf.

In my eyes, because he is a politician, and a lawyer, he has 2 strikes against him for truth telling to start off. His past performance while on the national scene has merely confirmed my admittedly bias view point(against lawyers and politicians) As I told my wife, MF'er could be purple, I don't care. I hate his policies.(I loath most politicians).

The extra reference to his own race, which happened to be possible, was subtle and an example of the kind of racial unification we hoped for when he was elected.

So a white president couldn't sufficiently address the shooting of an unarmed young man and the lack of police investigation into the incident?

That's the opposite of unification.

(I'd like to point out that anybody of any race could conceivably have a son of another race if they choose the right co-parent. Could Obama's mother have said, "If I had a son, he would look just like Treyvon Martin"? or "If I had a son, he would look just like Barack Obama"?)

Kabuki race pandering. OFCOURSE, the question was asked. The conventional unwisdom is that this was a racial incident and that racial incidents help Obama.OFCOURSE, Obama answered the question on a personal level (narcissists so rarely relate everything to themselves) instead of simply expressing condolences to the Martin family.The conventional unwisdom is that he's a racial unifier.

Nothing good ever comes of Obama bigfooting into a local issue. Or any issue for that matter.

This situation is starting to remind of the Duke Lacross "rape" allegation. Probably best to let the investigation proceed, except the revs Jackson and Sharpton are down there flinging shit, and the President has commented upon it (although thankfully without rendering a judgment)

Odds are that the Holden Justice Dept will prosecute a civil rights violation regardless of the outcome of the investigation. That would be consistent with Holder's racial politics.

This case won't effect the re-election campaign in any significant way. Obama needs to carry the states won by Kerry and a couple of others. The Kerry states are filled with dupes and are probably safe for The Won. He then needs a couple of swing states where he can focus his attention and money and the efforts of the lapdog mediaswine.

Nobody cares about the post-racial myth. This president is the most divisive in modern times and the mediaswine haven't commented yet.

"Last I heard, we're supposed to say "alleged" until the judge says otherwise.

At least, that's what the ACLU always told me."

Ah, yes. He is an -alleged- murderer, if you want. The alleged is so that journalists do not have to worry about slander/libel/etc. They are merely reporting the person is accused of a crime or believed to have committed it. It is also important because people get alleged of things without it being true (see all of the Duke lacrosse players who, I'm sure, a lot of people wish they had referred to it as an alleged rape while it was in dispute instead of saying a rape did occur.)

In this case, Zimmerman has admitted to the killing, but with the claim of self-defense. Therefore, you can say he killed Martin, but not that he murdered him.

Not saying that this justifies the killing but the deceased was out on suspension for fighting and from an inner city school where gangs and fighting are not unheard of. Maybe Zimmerman went too far playing cop and gotten a beating from a Miami kid who isn't used to being questioned on anything.

Florida has a death penalty and if Zimmerman did indeed commit a capital crime he has a realistic probability of facing the death penalty. In the meantime lets wait for the facts to be disclosed.

"Not saying that this justifies the killing but the deceased was out on suspension for fighting and from an inner city school where gangs and fighting are not unheard of."

-- That's new. As of yesterday, the only thing we had learned of Martin's school-related punishments involved excessive tardiness... which is really not that big of a deal in the grand cosmos. Got a link for this new allegation?

It is a sad fact that the "hoodie" has become the de facto uniform of the criminal class in this country and even abroad. They choose this garment for the same reason street thugs, foot-pads, highwaymen and stickup artists favored some form of hooded garment since time immemorial -- anonymity. It is also a sad fact that many young people have adopted the "thug" look even though they may have no untoward intentions whatsoever. Maybe this killing will take a bit of the glamour off the thug chic look.

Zimmerman would have likely challenged Martin no matter how he was dressed, though Martin did himself no favors by fitting the thug profile at least as far as wearing the uniform. From all accounts Zimmerman was a vigilante who phoned in dozens of spurious calls to the police about "suspicious characters" in his neighborhood, often abusing the 911 emergency system in the process.

To me the incident seems to be a kind Munchhausen by proxy event. Zimmerman wants to admired by the cops as a crime fighter. He wants disparately to catch a wanted criminal, a burglar or home invader, in the act, and thereby gain the respect and admiration he feels he deserves. So he challenges Martin, who rather stupidly in this case, stands on his rights to freely walk the streets of a gated community where he is an invited guest. One or both use some charged language. Fists fly. Zimmerman draws a pistol and shoots. A clear case of murder in the 2nd degree. Martin was the better balanced of the two, and as such ought to have tried to defused the situation as much as possible because Zimmerman was evidently inclined to ramp it up.

He has to tread lightly here because, horror of horrors, one of his constituents killed another of his constituents. Oh, and the killing constituent's cohorts do not much like the killed's cohorts. Actually they don't like them at all. This is a problem you should be aware of because you will not read or hear about it, the two being constituents and all.

It is IRRESPONSIBLE for a sitting President to weigh in on a case like this. Presidents of the past knew this. This one is looking to keep the white-hot fires of hate burning, to sow division and keep us at each other's throats. Divide, polarize - and offer soothing words on camera, knowing full well he is having the opposite effect.

It's really a remarkable skill. It always SOUNDS so good.

Someday, the full story of what is going on here will be written, by insiders who were part of the think-tanks and messaging teams, who calculate the response and help 'control the debate.'

It will be too late.

We now have a President who defends law-breakers - from Black Panther thugs, to illegal immigrants, to #Occupy. Who is standing up for law-abiding people?

CubanBob...The reason we have statutes for Manslaughter/Second Degree Murder and for Negligent Homocide is to make some allowances for stupid murders done by not totally bad guys, which seems to be what we have here.

But the lynch mob you cite arises when the Law Enforcement takes the month off and hides instead of risking doing the job that they are sworn to do by arresting and charging the Zimmermans and the Zantzingers of this world.

And lawyers need jobs too. That's what we do. The legal procedures over several years create a Tar Baby everyone is stuck in, and that alone stops vigilante actions.

The community in Florida is acting like Floridians act. They bond together against outsiders trespassing on what little they feel is theirs. The arrogant wealthy tourists and newcomer retirees taking over are hated, stalked and dealt with.

The black teens that are dressed as if they don't belong inside the gates are also hated, stalked and dealt with. Such conduct only wins approval from the local Floridians, as this Police Chief understands well.

What Rose said--a great opportunity to shift, at least temporarily, the reality of high gas prices. Will be interesting to see how long this tedious story plays out. Its great fodder for cable news, and hyper partisans, but at the end of the week gas prices will still be rising. Shelf life of this story probably 72 hours.

Curious George: Thank you for your input, but no, I will not google it, I will not research it, and I definitely will not go watch a video about it. When you take an inside joke outside, it is your responsibility to be clear to the outsiders.

I'm not saying the shooting was justified, that would depend on the "or worse" part and what the or worse was.

But presumably it didn't happen because guns are easy to get. Or because latinos have a deep seated hatred of black youth.

Unless you can show the shooter in question was always chasing away black kids with his gun or always raving about black kids, etc. then it's not a racial issue, but two scared/prideful/suspicious people confronting each other in the dark.

If you want to prevent things like this incident from happening you'd be better off having a curfew enforced... not saying we want to go there. But strangers in the night is more of a culprit than racism at this point.

Hispanics make up 16.3% of the population, blacks 12.6%. Obama's counting votes. The son reference turns me off. He wasn't Obama's son. Trayvon was someone else's son and for better or for worse, they're the ones suffering, not Obama.

I actually have 2 sons. Whenever I hear of kids getting shot, killed, mutilated, etc, I am saddened and hope it never happens to one of my kids. I tell my big football player son to never threaten or get in a fight with someone because no one's going to "fight" him unless they have a knife, gun or other deadly weapon.

Overall, Obama did a respectful job on this. Sharpton, et al want a lynching. They couldn't care less about justice. As I pointed out yesterday, 93% of all blacks murdered are murdered by other blacks and blacks are 6 times more likely to be murdered than whites. Racism is a miniscule part of this particular problem.

Can Obama ever avoid mentioning a racial issue? I think not. He panders to his most solid, racial, voting block. Obama's claim that he would move the country away from racial divisions was just one more lie.

I truly wonder about this assertion. He answered a shouted-out, "unsolicited" question from the press. These shouted questions happen all the time and he normally ignores them. Now I'm not saying there is any conspiracy theory but his answer was certainly better crafted than the "police acted stupidly" one and that one came at a press conference!

Concerning the statement, I agree with others who have said that it was pandering and over-reaching. He shouldn't have made it so personal.

For those asking about a setup:Ed Henry, White House reporter, said the asst WH communications guy, Josh Earnest, came out before Obama took the podium and whispered to the NBC reporter who later asked the question.

This is a difficult situation, and I think Obama would have preferred not to get involved. I would have preferred for him not to get involved, too. A homicide in Florida is no business of the President, just as Terry Schiavo was no business of Congress. What is it about Florida that turns small internal affairs into national priorities?

But, obviously, Obama's Justice Department is now involved and the story's [I think non-existent] racial angle gives it national importance for blacks, so eventually Obama would have to say something. It's easy to be cynical by saying Obama is manipulating the case to avoid talking about the economy, Obamacare, or gas prices, but I think Obama recognizes this case as a delicate situation in which taking sides will cause far more harm than good. He probably prefers a discreet investigation by the DoJ to Sharpton's egregious and public race-bating.

One thing I am cynical about though is Obama's insufferable habit of invoking his children without provocation into everything. I don't read stories about sixty-year-olds and think of my parents; it's absurd that Obama reads stories about 17 year old black guys in Florida and thinks, "Oh, dear Sasha. Dear Malia. Come hither and hug me, for that could have been you." This is his way of appealing to women with children... while turning around the next instant to appeal to women without children by praising abortion and contraception. He doesn't invoke his children then. How could he? "When I read about abortions, I immediately think of my own children." That doesn't work. So knock it off.

Not so sure he was speaking completely literally. Black, yes, but more in the tall, lean, athletic, well behaved, good student sense of look like his son. It could well be the same comment I might have made (if, of course, I was tall, lean, athletic, and well behaved.)

George Zimmerman poses a problem for Liberals, especially the race centric Liberals. Immediately he was described as a white racist apparently because of his name. But, he turned out to be Hispanic. For Liberals, this has to be a race crime, but the killer is Hispanic, but only whites are racists, but Zimmerman committed a race crime, but it can't be a race crime because he's Hispanic and only whites can be racists. It's a variation on the 'everything I say is a lie' conundrum. There is no way out for Liberals except to say anyone can be racist, or Hispanics are white.

Obama had better be very careful here. The hispanics are not crazy about the african americans. Quite the opposite. If this gets out of hand and becomes more of a lynch mob than it already is then the patient and stoic hispanics will retaliate. In the quiet of the voting booth.

If I had an hispanic son he might look like the killer. Or like a greyhound if I were a racing dog.

Obama did well here. He handled the question appropriately, I think, just as Althouse thinks.

It is pitiful in some ways that we, America, still have to work through our racial issues. Yes, the night this young man was murdered other black men were murdered across America... and likely by other black men. Yet, that's not a story or an issue to have a great public discourse on because it is uncomfortable. It also ties into this particular murder because perceptions of young black men at certain times and places is effected by the other non-reported on nationally murders.

The dems thought that a white guy (i.e. Zimmerman sounds like the name of the white guy) killed a black kid. The dems hoped to railroad the "white" guy, demonstrating that dems are the party that will protect minorities.

When the dems found out that Zimmerman is hispanic (damn lucky for Zman), they immediately backed off. Obama had to speechify so that sincere dems (aka dim dems or dum dems) would know to back off, once more demonstrating how much work it is to lead a top down monolithic party of mostly stupid people.

The smart dems (i.e. corrupt, cynical, insincere) already knew that of course a hispanic killing a black kid is no big deal (they don't even need a journo-list heads up for something that obvious) and were already backing off.

Pastafarian said...This is certainly a tragedy; but is it really a national news story, let alone something that POTUS should even address?

Obama may well have planted the question. Certainly he anticipated it. But unless he ducks the press for months on end (he wishes), he's going to get asked the question. He could say "It's a matter for local law enforcement" but that is callous and not necessarily true in this case anyway.

It was a terrible event--an innocent kid lost his life. That does not mean that the shooter was guilty of any crime, but once the media have picked up on it and made it a national story, Obama can hardly duck it.

The entire issue is about race, dumb ass. Do you think the MSM, Sharpton, et al would give a rat's ass if this had been a white kid? The only reason anyone commenting on this blog heard about this incident is because the kids is black and shot by a supposedly white man.

And, you try to say we're injecting race into the issue because Obama tiptoed around it and didn't utter the word "race." You get dumber every day.

As others, including me, far too many black teens die every day in the United States. And the sad fact is that most of these deaths result from black on black violence. Mr Obama nor his AG, have chosen to make this an issue. He really should make it an issue, much as Bill Cosby has done. If Mr Obama gave a damn for dead black teens, he needs to use the bully pulpit on that continuing problem. Insead, I suspect, his advisors have told him this is a winning issue so make a statement. The same criticism goes for the two slimy race hustlers, the rev Sharpton and Jackson. They, and Mr Obama, use blacks as a means to an end. Shame on all three of them. They are scurrilous political opportunists. And the black teen body count continues to mount.

What's wrong with the President's statement is what it's missing. There is no call for people to not judge a case before all the facts are in. No caution that the criminal justice system is a process, and the fact that Zimmerman has not yet been arrested does not mean that the case is over. He could have told everybody that it's too soon to judge what happened.

Heck, I would work in a reference to Richard Jewel, who the whole country was convinced was the Olympic Bomber, until, you know, it turned out that he wasn't.

He also could have said that the killing of a young black man is a tragedy no matter what the race of the victim is, that the very fact that this is such a huge news story is an indication of how rare this type of crime is. He could have reminded people that black-on-black murder is far more common than white-on-black murder, perhaps, and that any general outrage over the murder of black young men should be aimed in a different direction.

In other words, his statement did not do anything to actually try to calm down the anger that is currently bubbling up, and it should have.

I don't see how Ann can hear Obama's implied reference to race as "the kind of racial unification we hoped for when he was elected." To me, it is exactly the opposite. I think he should be saying I don't want to make this tragedy about race - the tragedy and sadness for the parents and the family would be the same no matter what the race of the boy." That would be the type of black president who could help on racial unification.

Judging the statement is so subjective. It seemed to me that he was trying to remember talking points. Regardless, I was slightly put off by the statement, but I'm not sure that my reaction is not colored by my anti-Obama political bias. My substantive criticism is that he enlarged the perception that it was race related and I don't think a president should do that.

Haz- that is Obama's most glaring failure IMO. He does not have the balls to speak up against lifestyle mistakes that are repeated over & over and doom some families for generations. He could do that easily & regularly yet he refuses to do it.

When the week began, one of the stories we discussed was how the Obama administration tried to suppress new stories of how the President’s actual daughter was travelling to Mexico on Spring Break out of supposed concern for her safety. On, Friday the same President is talking about how he’d feel if something were to happen to a hypothetical son.

"Hispanic" is an artificial race invented by two Jewish lawyers tasked in the LBJ Administration to label people to track "civil rights progress" of groups under EEO-Form1. Which the two men created.So they invented Hispanic, "Native American", and most ridiculously, Pacific Islander.

1. Hispanic refers to anyone who had an ancestor born south of the Border - except certain English-speaking Islands. 100% Spaniards born in Spain or the USA or China, for that matter are white Europeans. Native Americans born South of the Border, of mixed blood, blacks...can all claim to be hispanic as well. Mitt Romney is technically hispanic by the two Jewish lawyers rules.

2. Native Americans only exist North of Mexico by EEO rules the two lawyers agreed on. And they hatched the 1/32nd blood argument. Concerned that a 10th generation American could say they were bona fide NA's if they had 1/1024ths NA blood from some pioneer hooking up with a Mohawk squaw.

3. A Japanese, Filipino, Australian, or white person born in Hawaii is NOT a Pacific Islander by the lawyers creation back in 1966. They are white or Asian. Galapagos islanders are Hispanic. Aleutians are Native American.Only CERTAIN people on CERTAIN islands qualify.

"There is no call for people to not judge a case before all the facts are in. No caution that the criminal justice system is a process... He could have told everybody that it's too soon to judge what happened."

What are you talking about? He absolutely did do all these things and I praised him for it in the post.

You left out the part where Zimmerman loses sight of the kid, goes back to his truck to wait for police, is jumped from behind by the kid, is struck in the head hard enough to cause bleeding, is taken down to the ground, wrestles with kid, gets his nose broken, shoots kid.

But yes, other than that, its "pretty clear" what happened. Another angry white man executed a boy in cold blood for his skittles....

with obama's history of frequently referring to himself as a president who "doesn't look like the others" and who "doesn't look like the other guys on the money",etc.,it's no great leap to assume, when saying that the teen who was shot looks like he could be his son, that he was was not referring to his big ears but rather to the color of his skin. if that's not a racial comment, then i don't know what is. not letting this tragedy 'go to waste', he's exploiting the story to fit into his constant theme of america's being a racist society wherein those with the darkest skin tones are the most victimized.i believe that it's called 'critical race theory'.

When the president says “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” he's also implying the emotion of: "You know, that man killed someone who looked like MY son."

That's not restrained. It's calculated to fuel the fire being stoked by others. It's clever ONLY in that it appears sympathetic ... But it's not especially subtle. And Al Sharpton and others will know how to use this kind of statement.

Between invoking his daughters for the Fluke incident and describing his non-existent son, he's gettin some major Daddy points as of late.

"if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Really?More proof he is the smartest president ever...and so "post racial" too.As post racial as having a race based section a sitting president's campaign site:http://www.barackobama.com/african-americans/

Being Irish/German etc-American, I'm not sure if I would be flagged in violation if I signed up to "Join In". Yes..I know..this is not news to anyone else. And that speaks volumes to how post racial things really are.

But I do appreciate he didn't say the "police acted stupidly". That might have required another beer summit.

Last weekend in Chicago, the president's adopted hometown, 10 people were killed and at least 39 others were wounded in gang-related gun fire across the city. The victims were black and Hispanic. One of the dead was a six-year old girl who was playing on her front porch when she caught a stray bullet. Much of the carnage took place in neighborhoods Barack Obama once organized.

I wonder if any of the dead and wounded looked like Obama's son if he had one. I wonder, if Obama had another daughter, would she look like Aliyah Shell?

Chicago is home also to Jesse Jackson who, instead of tending to business in his own back yard, rushed down to Florida to join in the race-fest.

So the real tragedy here is not that Martin is dead but that Zimmerman still walks free? Is Aliyah Shell's family's loss and grief mitigated because arrests have been made?

“I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this,” Mr. Obama said. “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen.”

“I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Obama expressed no opinion about whether Zimmerman should be arrested. He said he was speaking strictly as a parent.

Why should "all of us as Americans" search our souls to "figure out why something like this happens"? Why is it "absolutely imperative" that every aspect of this particular case be investigated? Why is this so worthy of our serious attention while 10 dead and 39 wounded in Chicago is not even worth mentioning? Why should I care about this one black teenager when hundreds of black teenages are mown down every year? Why is this one death a tragedy while 10 are merely a statistic? What is it that makes Trayvon Martin so much more special than Aliyah Shell? I would like very much for Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and all the rest to explain it to me.

“So the real tragedy here is not that Martin is dead but that Zimmerman still walks free? Is Aliyah Shell's family's loss and grief mitigated because arrests have been made?”

As I stated, my understanding of the issue with the case in Sanford is that Zimmerman has not been arrested or charged with any crime. Not that there isn’t grief being felt for Martin, Aliyah Shell or any other family of someone who has been killed.

“Obama expressed no opinion about whether Zimmerman should be arrested. He said he was speaking strictly as a parent.”

Yes, of course, he should not comment on the specifics of the case while an investigation is underway. That is to be expected.

“Why should "all of us as Americans" search our souls to "figure out why something like this happens"? Why is it "absolutely imperative" that every aspect of this particular case be investigated? Why is this so worthy of our serious attention while 10 dead and 39 wounded in Chicago is not even worth mentioning? Why should I care about this one black teenager when hundreds of black teenages are mown down every year? Why is this one death a tragedy while 10 are merely a statistic? What is it that makes Trayvon Martin so much more special than Aliyah Shell? I would like very much for Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and all the rest to explain it to me.”

Not all those cases in Chicago that you mentioned have been elevated to the national level so I wouldn’t expect Obama to comment on each individually.

Why do you point out that the victim was black? What does his race have to do with the crime?

As far as your question as to why this one death is a tragedy while 10 are merely a statistic, who stated that the other 10 deaths are not tragedies? Obama made no such claim.

Why do you point out that the victim was black? What does his race have to do with the crime?

Are you kidding me? The victim's race has everything to do with the furor over the crime, if indeed a crime has been committed, which the Panthers (who have offered a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman's "capture"), Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton and any number of others assure us had everything to do with the victim's race. The president was more subtle, but he, too, injected race when it was unnecessary to do so. None of this would be going on if Martin weren't black.

And if any of the above actually cared to concern themselves about what went down in Chicago last week, they would talk about it. It would have been elevated to the national level. So, why hasn't it? Because Hispanic and black gang-bangers shooting each other up doesn't fit the narrative of black America under attack by white America which is the narrative that must be served and includes the proposition that "stand your ground" and voter ID laws are by their very nature racist and must be repealed.

“Are you kidding me? The victim's race has everything to do with the furor over the crime, if indeed a crime has been committed, which the Panthers (who have offered a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman's "capture"), Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton and any number of others assure us had everything to do with the victim's race. The president was more subtle, but he, too, injected race when it was unnecessary to do so. None of this would be going on if Martin weren't black.”

I’ve read over the transcript of the 911 call Zimmerman made before shooting Martin. He stated that Martin looked like he was up to no good and that he was on drugs or something. What did Zimmerman mean by this? How did he know if Martin was on drugs or not?

The 911 dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin to which Zimmerman replied that he was. The 911 dispatcher told him not to do that. Why did Zimmerman elect to continue pursuit and engage? Was he looking for a confrontation?

Don’t you think if the Sanford Police had done an actual investigation that these questions would have been answered? And if these questions had been answered do you really think this case would have been elevated to the national level and involved Obama?

“And if any of the above actually cared to concern themselves about what went down in Chicago last week, they would talk about it. It would have been elevated to the national level. So, why hasn't it? Because Hispanic and black gang-bangers shooting each other up doesn't fit the narrative of black America under attack by white America which is the narrative that must be served and includes the proposition that "stand your ground" and voter ID laws are by their very nature racist and must be repealed.”

Have the names and the life stories of the 17 people who were murdered in Afghanistan by the U.S. soldier who went berserk, many who were children, been discussed in the news? Why not I wonder?